noting how the legal significance of an employer's sexual equality policy could be grounds for continued employment with a given employer and thus constitute acceptance of that employer's offer
How later courts described this case
- noting how the legal significance of an employer's sexual equality policy could be grounds for continued employment with a given employer and thus constitute acceptance of that employer's offer
- employment handbook indicating employer’s commitment to providing fair and equitable working environment and fair compensation to its employees, together with detailed compensation policies, is sufficient to create triable issue of fact as to existence of contract
- noting that there is no legal difference between an express and implied-in-fact contract
- “[i]t just so happened that both policies were at issue in Tuttle”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge DAVIDSON
specially concurring:
I agree that the commitments in the employee handbook, particularly the paragraphs describing wage and salary admin *830 istration, and the conduct of the parties together establish a contract implied in fact. See Colo-Tex Leasing, Inc. v. Neitzert, 746 P.2d 972 (Colo.App.1987). However, I disagree that the circumstances of the case create an express contract. Therefore, I specially concur in the result reached by the majority.
Both contracts implied in fact, as present here, and express contracts require a meeting of the minds. Colo-Tex Leasing, Inc. v. Neitzert, supra. In an express contract, the agreement must be manifested in words. In an implied contract, on the other hand, a meeting of minds can be manifested by a combination of words and action. See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts § 1-12 (1977). Here, it is the combination that establishes the agreement.
In light of the fact, as the majority notes, that the employee handbook here included detailed wage and salary guidelines and in light of the importance of the actions of both parties in creating the contract, I also write specially to clarify that our decision today does not hold that the general language concerning equal employment opportunity for all in itself creates a contract. See Conkwright v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 739 F.Supp. 1006 (D.Md.1990); Lofton v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 643 F.Supp. 170 (E.D.Pa.1986).